MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?

[danwells]

That actually makes a lot of sense - rather than "Apple designed" chips meaning ARM, what if it means custom Ryzens?

As for why you don't want to emulate x86 on ARM, it has to do with the complexity of the applications. Every iOS application has to run on everything back to an iPhone 6S - requiring iOS 13 gets rid of anything earlier, but leaves open the possibility of a 4+ year old phone with 2 GB of RAM and a Geekbench 4 score around 4000 - this limits how complex the application could possibly be. I don't believe the App Store allows a developer to say "newer devices only"?

Emulation requires that the emulating machine be something like 2-3 times as powerful as the machine being emulated to get the same performance.

Catalyst relies on the fact that most Macs that turn up running Catalina will be powerful enough to emulate an iPhone 6 at reasonable performance - there are only a few edge cases of Macs capable of running Catalina that aren't several times as powerful as an old iPhone (mostly 11-inch Airs).

Going the other way would require the ARM Mac to be several times as powerful as the x86 Mac it's trying to emulate. Given that Adobe apps will end up emulated (unless you're willing to run translated iPad versions - Adobe will almost certainly base native ARM Mac versions on the iPad codebase, not the x86 Mac codebase), that could mean emulating something like a 2015 iMac or a 2017 MacBook Pro for the larger apps to perform decently (not extremely fast - just acceptable). Those Macs Geekbench (4) somewhere around 15000, meaning that the machine that emulates them would have to be around 30,000 - 45,000 (I know Geekbench isn't perfect, but not much else compares Macs to iOS).

The fastest iOS devices also have Geekbench 4 scores around 15,000 - meaning that an ARM Mac would have to be two or three times that fast merely to emulate running Photoshop or Premiere on what users of that software would consider an old, slow computer. A top-end 16" MacBook Pro Geekbenches (using version 4 scores to maintain compatibility with older hardware that lacks GB 5 scores) very close to 30,000, with a top-end 2019 iMac slightly faster and an 18-core iMac Pro brushing 50,000. These are the machines the big Adobe apps tend to run on. What's the chance Apple can come up with something 2-3 times that powerful (let alone two or three times as powerful as a Mac Pro that might Geekbench 100,000)?

AMD chips make a lot more sense - there's not a 2-3 time emulation penalty...

 

[goMac]

Catalyst relies on the fact that most Macs that turn up running Catalina will be powerful enough to emulate an iPhone 6 at reasonable performance - there are only a few edge cases of Macs capable of running Catalina that aren't several times as powerful as an old iPhone (mostly 11-inch Airs).

Catalyst is not emulation. it is not emulating ARM.

 

[Pro7913]

That actually makes a lot of sense - rather than "Apple designed" chips meaning ARM, what if it means custom Ryzens?

As for why you don't want to emulate x86 on ARM, it has to do with the complexity of the applications. Every iOS application has to run on everything back to an iPhone 6S - requiring iOS 13 gets rid of anything earlier, but leaves open the possibility of a 4+ year old phone with 2 GB of RAM and a Geekbench 4 score around 4000 - this limits how complex the application could possibly be. I don't believe the App Store allows a developer to say "newer devices only"?

Emulation requires that the emulating machine be something like 2-3 times as powerful as the machine being emulated to get the same performance.

Catalyst relies on the fact that most Macs that turn up running Catalina will be powerful enough to emulate an iPhone 6 at reasonable performance - there are only a few edge cases of Macs capable of running Catalina that aren't several times as powerful as an old iPhone (mostly 11-inch Airs).

Going the other way would require the ARM Mac to be several times as powerful as the x86 Mac it's trying to emulate. Given that Adobe apps will end up emulated (unless you're willing to run translated iPad versions - Adobe will almost certainly base native ARM Mac versions on the iPad codebase, not the x86 Mac codebase), that could mean emulating something like a 2015 iMac or a 2017 MacBook Pro for the larger apps to perform decently (not extremely fast - just acceptable). Those Macs Geekbench (4) somewhere around 15000, meaning that the machine that emulates them would have to be around 30,000 - 45,000 (I know Geekbench isn't perfect, but not much else compares Macs to iOS).

The fastest iOS devices also have Geekbench 4 scores around 15,000 - meaning that an ARM Mac would have to be two or three times that fast merely to emulate running Photoshop or Premiere on what users of that software would consider an old, slow computer. A top-end 16" MacBook Pro Geekbenches (using version 4 scores to maintain compatibility with older hardware that lacks GB 5 scores) very close to 30,000, with a top-end 2019 iMac slightly faster and an 18-core iMac Pro brushing 50,000. These are the machines the big Adobe apps tend to run on. What's the chance Apple can come up with something 2-3 times that powerful (let alone two or three times as powerful as a Mac Pro that might Geekbench 100,000)?

AMD chips make a lot more sense - there's not a 2-3 time emulation penalty...

APU only for now. That doesn't mean we can expect Threadripper or normal Ryzen series.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

there's not a 2-3 time emulation penalty...

I don’t think emulation of non-macOS OS’s or apps is a part of Apple’s future. If Apple switches to ARM AND a user requires x86 apps, there’s zero need for that user to buy a new system then run their apps emulated. They can just... keep the system they have. Seeing as how all the Intel systems saw updates this year, that last Intel system could last for 4-5 years into the ARM transition. Any app that a developer doesn’t re-compile to ARM in 5 years will just lose access to the market, and leave their users stranded looking for other solutions if they want to buy a new system.

The millions and millions of average folks buying new Macs each year will get most of the software they use from the Mac App store, which already has the ability to provide Intel or ARM compiled versions. And VERY few of them even know about running other OS’s. Once emulation is removed from the equation, the picture becomes a lot simpler.

 

[koyoot]

AMD's newest technology still doesn't perform as well per watt as Apple's ARM's solutions, though. I think the biggest "hint" of the future of macOS is the transition to 64-bit only code. Both Intel's and AMD's solutions support 32-bit and lower. If they were continuing with either, they could have kept 32-bit in Catalina. They did the same with iOS, first required 64-bit code on a chip that supported 64 and 32, and then released the 64-bit only version of the systems (iPhones and iPads). I guess Semi-Custom x86 COULD mean AMD that's 64 only, though...

Are they emulating ARM on x86 OR recompiling the code for Intel? I was under the impression that it was the latter. The Xcode simulator is performing emulation, but when you build an app for Intel, it's not building ARM code then running it in emulation, it building Intel executable code.

In what workloads?

There is a good reason why there are no Supercomputers based on ARM, but ALL of them are on x86. And HPC is also very energy efficiency sensitive.

No matter how power efficient your hardware is. If it takes you 5 times more time to do ceratin workloads than hardware that is consuming 50% more power, you always will get worse overall poerformance/watt in sustained loads.

2W's of power draw at idle mean nothing in this context.

P.S. What the hell are you talking about Intel and AMD supporting 32 bit instructions and lower? Dude, we are on 64 bit processors for past 15 years. Have you been sleeping under a rock for all of that time?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No matter how power efficient your hardware is.

Someone else posted that most of the systems Apple sells is mobile and, that being true, those customers (and by extension, Apple) don’t care about what’s going on at the high end. The folks that DO care about what’s goin on at the extreme top end can very easily purchase a non-macOS AMD solution, they don’t need one from Apple. I’m just not seeing Apple ever caring about having systems to compete against anyone’s AMD.

What the hell are you talking about Intel and AMD supporting 32 bit instructions and lower?

The hell I am talking about is Intel and AMD support 32 bit instructions. Apple’s iOS software, their iOS hardware and now their macOS software does NOT support 32 bit instructions. Apple’s macOS hardware DOES support 32 bit instructions, macOS Catalina does not. I’m saying why would Apple go through the effort to cut off access to 32 bit instructions for macOS if they were going to go with an AMD solution that DOES support 32 bit instructions? If they were planning to move to a 64 bit ONLY processor, though, something Intel tried and failed... and something I don’t know if AMD has NEVER tried... it would make sense to cut off access to 32 bit instructions in the OS first, just like they did for iOS.

 

[danwells]

Apple does sell mostly mobile systems - but they are the world's largest seller of really fast laptops. They sell something like 5 million 15 (now 16) inch mobile workstations annually. The whole remainder of the mobile workstation market is about 1/3 of that. Yes, the big MBP is a true (thin-and-light) mobile workstation. What other kind of laptop comes with the fastest possible mobile processor, a discrete GPU with a custom stability-optimized driver, superfast SSD storage reaching 8 TB and RAM options starting at 16 GB and going up? Even if you include high-end gaming systems as well as workstations in the "really fast laptop" category, Apple is no longer most of the combined market, but they are still the largest single vendor. Adding Alienware, XPS and Precision laptops with 6 or 8 core CPUs and discrete GPUs together, Dell's in second place with half or so of Apple's sales.

Have fun replacing that high end with ARM... That ARM laptop had better geekbench 60,000-90,000 because Adobe's not going to port the big legacy apps! Microsoft couldn't even get Office ported to support their own Surface Pro X running their own operating system.

 

[goMac]

Have fun replacing that high end with ARM... That ARM laptop had better geekbench 60,000-90,000 because Adobe's not going to port the big legacy apps! Microsoft couldn't even get Office ported to support their own Surface Pro X running their own operating system.

Adobe is already porting to ARM. They already announced it and the first apps are shipping on iPad and coming to ARM Microsoft Surface soon.

ARM ports are mostly just recompiles these days. No one is hand writing things in x86 assembly any more. And GPU acceleration further moves things away from the GPU. This isn't the dark ages where people are optimizing for a specific CPU or machine.

 

[jinnyman]

As far as ARM goes, first bring out and let people see the true performance then we will discuss. I don't care any theoretical benchmark score. Let's see them with Mac OS in it.

Personally, if all these hypothetical outstanding performance is true on a true computer os with real multitasking, vendors would have been selling those already. However, we only see one or another from vendor as gimmick product. Lack of any serious ARM personal computer itself proves that it's not ready for prime time in personal computing.

 

[Pro7913]

Have fun replacing that high end with ARM... That ARM laptop had better geekbench 60,000-90,000 because Adobe's not going to port the big legacy apps! Microsoft couldn't even get Office ported to support their own Surface Pro X running their own operating system.

Adobe is already doing that since 2018. Never heard of Photoshop CC iPad version?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

There is an obvious path to the ARM as long as the ARM chips have the oomph. Just like when Apple switched from PPC to Intel, for apps that didnt get ported, it had a compatibility layer Rosetta.

 

[th0masp]

Photoshop on the iPad– Version 1.0 launches today. This is just the beginning of our journey to expand Photoshop to devices, increasing your choices on how to work using Photoshop. We are launching the first version on the iPad, starting with Photoshop’s top workflows, compositing, masking and retouching, with more to come. Over time, we’ll add more capabilities and workflows as we learn more about how customers use Photoshop on a mobile device.

from: https://theblog.adobe.com/creativit...journey-of-photoshop-reimagined-for-the-ipad/


So that's the state of the art for one of the premier Mac applications on the ARM platform. Sounds like Intel (and AMD) will be able to sleep easy another decade or two at this rate though.

 

[Pressure]

Photoshop on the iPad– Version 1.0 launches today. This is just the beginning of our journey to expand Photoshop to devices, increasing your choices on how to work using Photoshop. We are launching the first version on the iPad, starting with Photoshop’s top workflows, compositing, masking and retouching, with more to come. Over time, we’ll add more capabilities and workflows as we learn more about how customers use Photoshop on a mobile device.

from: https://theblog.adobe.com/creativit...journey-of-photoshop-reimagined-for-the-ipad/


So that's the state of the art for one of the premier Mac applications on the ARM platform. Sounds like Intel (and AMD) will be able to sleep easy another decade or two at this rate though.

Just like Nokia and Motorola in 2007? They slept alright.

if someone like Adobe are first out of the house with these changes then you should pay attention. Although the goal should be platform agnostic apps which works across many devices with the same feature set.

 

[th0masp]

Actually, Affinity seems way further along on this platform - but in all cases I can recall hearing about these are all reimagined apps, centered around a touch interface and simplified along the way.

I don't get how this can be likened to the move from IBM to Intel which was a move to a significantly more popular platform, performance aside. Suddenly with a Mac you were way more compatible than before which opened up new avenues.

These things would have to literally run rings around the established platforms to get any sort of developer traction going. Besides picking up a Mac for porting is not exactly a 500 dollar for a Mini, upgrade at your own leisure type of affair anymore.

 

[koyoot]

Someone else posted that most of the systems Apple sells is mobile and, that being true, those customers (and by extension, Apple) don’t care about what’s going on at the high end. The folks that DO care about what’s goin on at the extreme top end can very easily purchase a non-macOS AMD solution, they don’t need one from Apple. I’m just not seeing Apple ever caring about having systems to compete against anyone’s AMD.

The hell I am talking about is Intel and AMD support 32 bit instructions. Apple’s iOS software, their iOS hardware and now their macOS software does NOT support 32 bit instructions. Apple’s macOS hardware DOES support 32 bit instructions, macOS Catalina does not. I’m saying why would Apple go through the effort to cut off access to 32 bit instructions for macOS if they were going to go with an AMD solution that DOES support 32 bit instructions? If they were planning to move to a 64 bit ONLY processor, though, something Intel tried and failed... and something I don’t know if AMD has NEVER tried... it would make sense to cut off access to 32 bit instructions in the OS first, just like they did for iOS.

Then how the hell MacOS Catalina runs on CPUs that have BOTH 32 and 64 bit instruction capabilities?

You have completely mistaken the cause with effect in that rumble on 32 bit instructions.

It is actually hilarious .

My old Mac that my friend is using has Ivy Bridge CPU. And it still runs Catalina! .

Your logic here was hilarious

Just because your OS supports only 64 bit instruction set, does not invalidate the capability of the hardware that supports both: 32 and 64 bit to run that OS XD

And if you believe that 64 bit only OS suddenly will cut the hardware that runs both types if instructions, I have one sentence for you. It does not work that way.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Then how the hell MacOS Catalina runs on CPUs that have BOTH 32 and 64 bit instruction capabilities?

You have completely mistaken the cause with effect in that rumble on 32 bit instructions.

It is actually hilarious .

My old Mac that my friend is using has Ivy Bridge CPU. And it still runs Catalina! .

Your logic here was hilarious

Just because your OS supports only 64 bit instruction set, does not invalidate the capability of the hardware that supports both: 32 and 64 bit to run that OS XD

And if you believe that 64 bit only OS suddenly will cut the hardware that runs both types if instructions, I have one sentence for you. It does not work that way.

He’s talking about Apple moving to ARM/Arm/Axx CPUs designed and built in-house by Apple which are 64-bit only. When (and if) Apple transitions the Mac to the A-Series the apps will be 64-bit clean by default. Eliminating 32-bit support, APIs, et al. means that Apple can create a clean break from older versions of macOS and their 32-bit legacy.

You’ve determined that Apple is going to switch to AMD in 2020, while I and others believe that Apple is moving to A-Series CPUs along a longer transition period of which Catalyst and SwiftUI are the first pieces of the puzzle on the software side and the 2018 iPad Pro, while still an iPad, is the start of that transition as the only real difference between it and the 2015-2017 12” MacBook is the CPU inside and the bolted on keyboard.

Time will tell which of us is correct.

 

[deconstruct60]

now their macOS software does NOT support 32 bit instructions. Apple’s macOS hardware DOES support 32 bit instructions, macOS Catalina does not. I’m saying why would Apple go through the effort to cut off access to 32 bit instructions for macOS if they were going to go with an AMD solution that DOES support 32 bit instructions? If they were planning to move to a 64 bit ONLY processor,

Then how the hell MacOS Catalina runs on CPUs that have BOTH 32 and 64 bit instruction capabilities?

You have completely mistaken the cause with effect in that rumble on 32 bit instructions.

It is actually hilarious .

My old Mac that my friend is using has Ivy Bridge CPU. And it still runs Catalina! .

Your logic here was hilarious

Just because your OS supports only 64 bit instruction set, does not invalidate the capability of the hardware that supports both: 32 and 64 bit to run that OS XD

And if you believe that 64 bit only OS suddenly will cut the hardware that runs both types if instructions, I have one sentence for you. It does not work that way.

Chucking the 32-bit instruction decode logic would save some space. The "back end" ( after instruction decode) of x86 and ARM is all micro-op , RISC-like . If attempting to put 60 cores , with 60 decoders on a die (or some dies) those transistors could be allocated to something else. Something relatively small but something else. in Mac Pro CPU package sizes and thermal limits, it is pragmatically even less relatively smaller.

The substantive flaw in the logic here is that the hardware should be 100% locked into just macOS. 64-bit only would be kicking both BootCamp and vast majority of VM apps in the shins. (the latter because they use the Virtualization instruction subset to avoid 100% emulations. ).

Even in the far more security locked down world of T2 secured boot there is an option to run signed Windows OS instances. And Windows isn't going to go 100% pristine 64 bit only in a very long time. Linux even longer. All rigid x86-64 only buys Apple is less users. They'd be extremely hard pressed to come up with some magical do-dad they were going to add to the chip with the budget they bought to offset the number of uses who would just say "screw that" and skip buying a Mac. The Market pressure to match Windows and Linux (at least in VM running ability if not dual boot ) makes that a dead end move.


P.S. Catalina doesn't de-support 32-bit instructions. It just doesn't provide 32-bit libraries of the macOS services and infrastructure. That doesn't mean some other app can create it own internal context that doesn't leverage macOS directly to run 32-bit code. Catalina doesn't stop that because pragmatically it is outside of macOS.

P.P.S. It is also highly doubtful that "Semi Custom" would allow a customer to substnatiaclly 'fork' the instruction set coverage. The ripple effect downstream is probably big enough that it is either a huge fee that none are little to touch or it is too much of distraction. Adding some instructions or a highly siloed "extra" function unit(s) is one thing. If want something that is very different that then that is more fully blown custom. AMD has even drama trying to keep up with Nvidia, Intel, and other ARM implementors encroaching on their space, to spend loads of time off-roading with Apple off in a swamp for even paid 'fun'.

 

[deconstruct60]

.... Both Intel's and AMD's solutions support 32-bit and lower. If they were continuing with either, they could have kept 32-bit in Catalina. They did the same with iOS, first required 64-bit code on a chip that supported 64 and 32, and then released the 64-bit only version of the systems (iPhones and iPads). I guess Semi-Custom x86 COULD mean AMD that's 64 only, though...

Apple dropping 32-bit out of macOS Catalina has far more to do that is less work to deal and is much easier to distribute higher quality code with building building one set of libraries instead of two. For 32-bits need another API to take addresses ( and some other data types ) of different size. Even if that is only Thunking out to 64-bits and back again it is still stuff to do , maintain, do security hardening on, QA test runs, etc. etc. etc.

Apple had probably getting the 64 bit work done for macOS Catalina in a hgh quality fashion. Really think the overall system quality would have improved if they had added 32-bit coverage too? It wouldn't have. Extremely likely it would have worse than it was.

Dropping 32-bit is a shift to putting about the same fixed size group developing a wider set of API. (e.g., Catalyst , SwiftUI, and still unannouced new stuff ). They are simply just ignoring the 32-bit part of the x86 CPUs. There is about zero need to bubble that down to the hardware level. In fact, they'd loose substantive customers out of the "Pro" programmer segment if they screwed up running other OS ( boot camp , Virutal machines ( Fusion, Parallel, Virtual Box ) , containers like Docker , etc.

For the iOS devices the power limits are so constrain that they do nickel and dime everything possible to squeeze out more battery life. Chopping 32-bit there where there is zero OS competition probably is a decent trade off. In the Mac space, there more direct OS competition and nickel and diming at those power limits isn't going to make a big deal.

 

[koyoot]

He’s talking about Apple moving to ARM/Arm/Axx CPUs designed and built in-house by Apple which are 64-bit only. When (and if) Apple transitions the Mac to the A-Series the apps will be 64-bit clean by default. Eliminating 32-bit support, APIs, et al. means that Apple can create a clean break from older versions of macOS and their 32-bit legacy.

You’ve determined that Apple is going to switch to AMD in 2020, while I and others believe that Apple is moving to A-Series CPUs along a longer transition period of which Catalyst and SwiftUI are the first pieces of the puzzle on the software side and the 2018 iPad Pro, while still an iPad, is the start of that transition as the only real difference between it and the 2015-2017 12” MacBook is the CPU inside and the bolted on keyboard.

Time will tell which of us is correct.

Read about what removing of 32 bit support means, then talk.

The only thing missing from Catalina are 32 bit LIBRARIES! Not support for 32 bit instructions.

Apple did what Canonical tried to do with Ubuntu, but the outrage and resistance of the Ubuntu user community stopped them from doing it.

It has nothing to do with 32 bit instruction set, you cannot take it out of ISA. No matter what type of architecture you use. Be it ARM, Power or x86_64.

It has zero to do with Apple using specific hardware.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Read about what removing of 32 bit support means, then talk.

The only thing missing from Catalina are 32 bit LIBRARIES! Not support for 32 bit instructions.

Apple did what Canonical tried to do with Ubuntu, but the outrage and resistance of the Ubuntu user community stopped them from doing it.

It has nothing to do with 32 bit instruction set, you cannot take it out of ISA. No matter what type of architecture you use. Be it ARM, Power or x86_64.

It has zero to do with Apple using specific hardware.

Canonical is not Apple and the Ubuntu user community is not representative of the Apple user base as a whole. Most users have no idea what 32-bit versus 64-bit is or even care.

Bottom line - Apple has completed the transition to a 64-bit operating system which allow it to move forward with implementing a slow, but steady migration to ARM/Arm/Axx CPUs/SOCs in the near term, which is the most logical course of action if they want to free themselves of Intel’s grip, it’s poor decisions and it’s failed roadmap. Once they do that, that’s it, and AMD is on the outside looking in the same as Intel.

 

[goMac]

Photoshop on the iPad– Version 1.0 launches today. This is just the beginning of our journey to expand Photoshop to devices, increasing your choices on how to work using Photoshop. We are launching the first version on the iPad, starting with Photoshop’s top workflows, compositing, masking and retouching, with more to come. Over time, we’ll add more capabilities and workflows as we learn more about how customers use Photoshop on a mobile device.

from: https://theblog.adobe.com/creativit...journey-of-photoshop-reimagined-for-the-ipad/


So that's the state of the art for one of the premier Mac applications on the ARM platform. Sounds like Intel (and AMD) will be able to sleep easy another decade or two at this rate though.

Full Photoshop was announced for Windows on ARM a few weeks ago.

 

[koyoot]

Canonical is not Apple and the Ubuntu user community is not representative of the Apple user base as a whole. Most users have no idea what 32-bit versus 64-bit is or even care.

Bottom line - Apple has completed the transition to a 64-bit operating system which allow it to move forward with implementing a slow, but steady migration to ARM/Arm/Axx CPUs/SOCs in the near term, which is the most logical course of action if they want to free themselves of Intel’s grip, it’s poor decisions and it’s failed roadmap. Once they do that, that’s it, and AMD is on the outside looking in the same as Intel.

Canonical wanted to ditch the 32 bit libraries from their OS for the exactly same reasons as Apple.

Do you think it is hardware, considering that Ubuntu is supposed to run on everything there is? Do you think that Canonical decided such thing to get out of the grip of AMD and Intel and to design their own hardware?

XD

If you do not understand the answer to this questions, do not talk about Apple's plans on hardware.

 

[goMac]

Canonical wanted to ditch the 32 bit libraries from their OS for the exactly same reasons as Apple.

Do you think it is hardware, considering that Ubuntu is supposed to run on everything there is? Do you think that Canonical decided such thing to get out of the grip of AMD and Intel and to design their own hardware?

XD

If you do not understand the answer to this questions, do not talk about Apple's plans on hardware.

Even worse - 32 bit macOS is stuck on an older version of the runtime that doesn't get new language features.

Keeping 32 bit support around meant that Apple was using 2005 era macOS development practices. They couldn't use any of the modern stuff they were shipping to third party developers.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

vendors would have been selling those already.

No vendors have mass produced ARM processors that perform anywhere near as well as Apple’s A-series solutions. The stuff that Qualcomm produces is generations behind Apple. It’s really not surprising that no one has had market success with solutions based on non-Apple ARM processors.

Apple dropping 32-bit out of macOS Catalina has far more to do that is less work to deal and is much easier to distribute higher quality code

If it’s JUST less work to deal with, is there another OS out there that has taken the “less work” and “higher quality code” route and support 32-bit libraries?

there more direct OS competition

There’s zero direct OS competition to Apple because there’s no other OS that runs Final Cut Pro X or Logic Pro X. If your entire use case is Open Source Portable libraries, (i.e. macOS is not your preferred OS, you could use anything) then there’s need for Apple to provide one out of a myriad solutions, just buy the hardware that has the performance you want and then install the OS of your preference.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Canonical wanted to ditch the 32 bit libraries from their OS for the exactly same reasons as Apple.

Do you think it is hardware, considering that Ubuntu is supposed to run on everything there is? Do you think that Canonical decided such thing to get out of the grip of AMD and Intel and to design their own hardware?

XD

If you do not understand the answer to this questions, do not talk about Apple's plans on hardware.

Cut the condescending crap...I’ll talk about whatever I choose.

I am fully aware that Canonical doesn’t make its own hardware, but Apple does, and that’s the difference. Linux distros use their breadth of hardware support as a major “selling” point. Open Source users have their own unique needs, wants and desires AND opinions. It is part of the strength and weakness of the Open Source movement.

Apple has taken considerable time and effort to get itself into this position to design and produce their own SoC, now they’re moving on to making their own 5G modems. There’s a method to their madness and that is to become the sole supplier to themselves of critical components and reduce their dependence on Intel and, eventually, they may end up ditching AMD GPUs as well.

While ditching 32-bit support is a “software” decision, it has as much to do with Apple’s future hardware ambitions moving forward as it does with pushing developers forward to embrace modern technologies and to get them to take advantage of Apple’s unique hardware and software synergies that work over all their different platforms (iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS and watchOS).

Your desire for Apple to switch to AMD is missing that particular piece of reality that the Mac is just one piece of what Apple makes and sells. You won’t be the first or the last to ignore the other 67% of Apple’s hardware revenue.